PROTECTION RACKET: The U.S. kills 100,000 carnivores yearly under the Wildlife Services program, mainly to protect livestock. However, its own statistics show most livestock losses result from weather, disease, illness and birthing problems, not predation.
Image: iStockPhoto/Thinkstock
Dear EarthTalk: A friend of mine told me that our government kills thousands of wild animals like bears and wolves every year in the name of protecting livestock. How can the government, which is supposed to protect dwindling numbers of animals, instead be killing them?—Amy Pratt, Troy, N.Y.
Actually, the federal government kills some 100,000 carnivores every year under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Wildlife Services program. While the program does much more than so-called “predator control”—threatened and endangered species conservation, invasive species mitigation, wildlife disease monitoring, airport bird strike prevention, rabies and rodent control—killing bears, wolves, coyotes and mountain lions to protect livestock does take up $100 million of the federal budget each year.
Animal advocates say it’s not fair to kill animals owned in essence by the public trust and indispensable to ecosystem health just to protect privately held livestock, let alone spend millions of tax dollars doing it.
“Working directly with commercial operators and state and local governments, Wildlife Services uses a combination of lethal control methods, like trapping, aerial gunning, poisoning, and denning (killing young in their dens), and some non-lethal control methods,” reports the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “But driven by narrow agricultural interests, these predator control activities often ignore the greater public need for a healthy environment, fiscal responsibility, and safe public lands.”
NRDC cites USDA statistics showing that most livestock losses result from weather, disease, illness and birthing problems—not predation. They also argue that the lethal methods employed by Wildlife Services have led to dozens of human and pet injuries and deaths and degrade ecosystems that rely on healthy predator populations to function. Also the two most commonly used poisons, Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide, go beyond killing animals and wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.
Predator Defense, another group committed to ending federal predator control efforts, says that it is important to maintain healthy populations of the very predators Wildlife Services works to kill. When, for instance, predators are around to keep deer and elk populations in check, more and varied kinds of plants are given space and time to grow, in turn preserving and creating habitat for many different species.
“Wildlife Services’ predator control work cries out for reform,” says NRDC. The group recommends bringing more transparency to the process so the public can assess how tax dollars are being used; taking a more scientific approach instead of centering the program around the demands of commercial interests; holding the program to higher environmental standards; ending the cruelest, most hazardous and environmentally harmful killing methods; and requiring non-lethal methods when possible.
There has been no decisive legislation to stop predator control efforts, but a bill introduced into the House by California Republican John Campbell III calls for amending the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the use of Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide for predator control. The bill (H.R. 4214) was referred to committee and may or may not see a floor vote this year.
CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; Predator Defense, www.predatordefense.org; H.R. 4214, www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4214.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentWow. Is this an actual article? Unbiased, with research and comments from USDA and the farming community?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a retired wildlife biologist I have worked in the endangered species category both for and with many gov't agencies including USDA/Wildlife Services. I have worked with the USDA to mitigate damage caused by the presence of human populations and the follow-on effects of their pets, their irresponsible use of limited resources, their physical incursions onto endangered species nesting sites (Cal. Least Tern among others), and the overall impact their presence causes in relation to the uncontrolled, sky-rocketing population of endemic and introduced species (such as Coyote,crow,squirrel etc.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article contains no citations, no balanced viewpoint, only emotion-charged opinion. Hence.... not science.
Why do I see more and more of this sort of uninformed noise on what once was a periodical/organization that held itself to much higher standards? Shame on you.
When I read an article like this, I can't help wondering what would happen if more Americans knew how their tax dollars were being spent? Would the relentless extermination of wild species under the guise of government "care" be allowed to continue? Where is the need to "manage" wild animals, anyway? Who in their right mind would call clear-cutting trees and poisoning the animals "forest management"? Nature has done a pretty good job of managing itself since the beginning of time. As humanity has taken over the planet, however, things have been pushed farther and farther out of balance. We must wake up or risk losing Earth's beauty. What a tragedy that would be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis isn't the first time the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Wildlife Services program has been accused of wrong doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe two departments should not be combined, because it's a conflict of interest and the Agriculture Dept is too powerful. Agriculture Dept needs to be replaced with new people that have common sense and morals.
U.S. Department of Agriculture oks the Monsanto seeds and poisons.
The harm these two companies have caused at taxpayer expense makes the global dept look like a small potato. Most people don't care until something bad happens to them and it lawsuit time.
I don't know where the right balance is but, I am sure what they are doing is not ok with most people.
No, this is not an article. It is a reprint of a column - check the bottom citation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee response to other complaint regarding the fact this is not an article but a segment from a question and answer column and not originally from Scientific American but an environmental magazine. Now - would I have liked links to the USDA statistics mentioned? Yes, but I can search for those myself. Would I like a little more information on just what the toxic poisons are doing to the environment? Sure - but I imagine I can follow the links to the webpages at the bottom for more information. As stated this isn't an academic exercise or a full blown article - different rules apply and your expectations should be, should be, well, different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2nd - so called 'balance' in articles is frequently misleading. It is the problem we see in many arguments revolving around climate change. You can find numerous authorities who agree, but then we still have to find the one who disagrees and give that one equal space? There is balance and then there is ridiculous.